Juergen Spitzmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

| Hm, I think it's quite descriptive. Would you prefer "with_path"?

If you have the time please change this to withPath. Follow the naming
rules better. (I know we have several places where we don't follow
them , but why add to the confusion?)

Patch is ok.

-- 
        Lgb

Reply via email to